You are here: / / PURSUANT TO THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS” DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF, A NEW...
, ,

PURSUANT TO THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS” DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK CORPORATION AND BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES IN BARCLAYS, AN ENGLISH CORPORATION, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING A DERIVATIVE SUIT ON BEHALF OF BARCLAYS AGAINST OFFICERS AND MANAGERS OF A NEW YORK AFFILIATE OF BARCLAYS IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a comprehensive dissenting opinion, determined that the Business Corporation Law (BCL)  (sections 626(a) and 1319(a)(2)) has not displaced the “internal affairs” doctrine, a choice-of-law rule providing that the substantive law of the place of incorporation governs disputes about the rights and relationships of corporate shareholders and managers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ rulings that plaintiff, a New York corporation and a beneficial owner of shares in England-based Barclays, did not have standing to sue, on behalf of Barclays, directors and officers of Barclays New York-based affiliate in New York:

The corporation at the center of this appeal is Barclays PLC (Barclays), a bank holding company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales and headquartered in London. Plaintiff Ezrasons, Inc. is a New York corporation and a beneficial owner of Barclays shares. In 2021, plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of Barclays against almost four-dozen current and former Barclays directors and officers and a New York-based affiliate, Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI). The complaint alleged that the individual defendants, aided and abetted by BCI, breached fiduciary duties owed to Barclays under English law, causing significant injuries to the company. * * *

Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, explaining that under the internal affairs doctrine, foreign law governs the question of whether a plaintiff has the right to sue corporate management on behalf of a foreign corporation. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the legislature intended to override that choice-of-law rule when it enacted sections 626 (a) and 1319 (a) (2) of the BCL, agreeing with four decades of case law holding that those provisions “simply confer[] jurisdiction upon New York courts over derivative suits on behalf of out-of-state corporations, but do[ ] not require application of New York law in such suits” … .

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, agreeing with Supreme Court that plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this shareholder derivative action on behalf of Barclays … . … [T]he Appellate Division rejected plaintiff’s argument that sections 626 (a) and 1319 (a) (2) displace the internal affairs doctrine and preclude application of English standing law … . Ezrasons, Inc. v Rudd, 2025 NY Slip Op 03008, CtApp 5-20-25

Practice Point: Business Corporation Law sections 626(a) and 1319(a)(2) do not displace the “internal affairs” doctrine which provides that the substantive law of the place of incorporation (England in this case) governs disputes about the rights and relationships of corporate shareholders and managers. Here a New York corporation which holds shares of an English corporation could not sue the officers and managers of a New York affiliate of the English corporation in New York.​

 

You might also like
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE TO RAISE THE AGENCY DEFENSE TO A DRUG SALE, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR DRUG-SALE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THE PEOPLE’S CASE TO PROVE INTENT.
Contradictory Information in Disclaimer Letters Did Not Invalidate the Disclaimer of Assault and Battery Coverage
THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY RETIRED NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES TO PROVE THE CITY PROMISED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR LIFE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS PROMISE; THEREFORE THE RETIREES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THEIR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAUSE OF ACTION (CT APP).
NASSAU COUNTY PROPERLY DETERMINED A POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FOR CIVIL DAMAGES STEMMING FROM A LAWSUIT BY AN ARRESTEE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN JAIL AFTER THE OFFICER KNEW HE COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME (CT APP)
NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED ANYTHING LESS THAN SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, REQUEST FOR A JURY CHARGE ON ASSAULT THIRD WAS PROPERLY DENIED (CT APP). ​
THE MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION PROPERLY REFUSED TO HEAR APPELLANT FATHER’S APPEAL IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING BECAUSE FATHER WAS IN DEFAULT (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A DEFAULT); THE DISSENT ARGUED FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT BECAUSE HE APPEARED BY COUNSEL (CT APP).
UNDER THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AN OBJECTION WAS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ERROR RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE ABOUT A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; DEFENDANT SUBSEQUENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO HIS ABSENCE FROM THE PRE-WAIVER SIDEBAR (CT APP).
Uncle Was Properly Found to Be a “Person Legally Responsible” for the Abused Child—He Was Therefore a Proper “Respondent” in a Child Abuse/Neglect Proceeding

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A STEP BROKE AS HE STEPPED ON IT; THE LABOR LAW 200... DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS;...